popruzhenko_2008

S. V. Popruzhenko, V. D. Mur and V. S. Popov, “Coulomb correction to the ionization rate of atoms in high-frequency intense laser fields”, Phys. Lett. A 372, 5167 (2008)

Source record · Catalogue · Review register

DOI: 10.1016/j.physleta.2008.05.080

Source kind: theory

Recorded technique: Analytic theory: the Coulomb correction Q_C to the multiphoton (gamma >> 1) ionisation rate of an s-state in a linearly polarized field, from the imaginary-time method for the sub-barrier trajectory with the Kapitza method for the motion in the rapidly oscillating field, to first order in mu = Z omega/kappa^3 = n*/(2 K0) (pp. 2-3). Evaluated for atoms at 1.55 eV (Ti:sapphire) and 3.1 eV and for ions at 12.7 eV, 1e13 W/cm^2 (Tables 1-2).

Materials in structured entries: None recorded.

Dataset quantities: None recorded.

Contents: 0 datasets; 0 formulas.

Curation notes

Identity checked against pdf p. 1. Pages are pdf pages (1-4 = pp. 5167-5170). UNMAPPED_GLYPHS on pp. 2 and 4 touch footnotes (the minimum photoelectron energy, the validity condition K0 >> 2n*), not the tables.

WHY NOTHING IS TAKEN. The two tables (p. 3) are evaluations of the paper’s model formulas at one intensity, ‘for s-states, so that the numbers provide rather order-in-magnitude estimates than precise values’ (p. 3), although ‘in real atoms and ions the outermost electron is usually in the state with nonzero orbital momentum’. They are neither a property of the gas nor a constant fitted within a rate model (ionization_model_parameter), and W is a model probability per laser period, not a measured or ab initio yield. Quoted here for review.

TABLE 1 (tbl_4642ab1ee751, p. 3; image checked): neutral atoms at 1e13 W/cm^2, I-Kr at hbar omega = 1.55 eV (lambda = 0.79 um), Ar-He at its second harmonic; columns I (eV), K0 = I/(hbar omega), n*, mu, gamma, W_sr (Eq. (21), short-range probability per period), Q (Eq. (20)), W = Q W_sr; ‘a(b)’ means a x 10^b. In-scope rows: Xe | 12.1 | 7.81 | 1.06 | 0.068 | 3.4 | 6.2(-11) | 1.1(6) | 7.0(-5); Kr | 14.0 | 9.03 | 0.99 | 0.055 | 3.6 | 6.6(-13) | 7.5(5) | 5.0(-7); Ar | 15.8 | 5.10 | 0.93 | 0.091 | 7.7 | 2.7(-11) | 1.9(6) | 5.2(-5); Ne | 21.6 | 6.97 | 0.79 | 0.057 | 9.0 | 2.8(-16) | 6.4(5) | 1.8(-10); He | 24.6 | 7.94 | 0.74 | 0.047 | 9.6 | 3.6(-17) | 4.1(5) | 1.4(-11). Out of scope: I (10.5 eV) and H (13.6 eV). ‘For a 100 fs pulse N = 37’ periods. The printed gamma is about 6 % above kappa omega/E with E = 0.01688 au, the peak field of 1e13 W/cm^2 (Xe 3.18, He 9.08 computed 2026-09-26, against 3.4 and 9.6): the paper does not say how it converts intensity to field.

TABLE 2 (tbl_8cf9f59f3ee0, p. 3; image checked): positive ions at hbar omega = 12.7 eV (98 nm, a free-electron laser), 1e13 W/cm^2, the same columns. In scope: Ne+ | 41.0 | 3.23 | 1.15 | 0.18 | 51 | 7.1(-14) | 1.3(11) | 9.3(-3) (I here is the ionisation energy of Ne+, no kind or source stated). Out of scope: Ne2+, Ar4+, Ar5+, Xe6+, Xe7+ (multiply charged). ‘For a 100 fs pulse N = 307’. Its parameters ‘correspond to the experiment [9]’ (Wabnitz et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 023001 (2005)).

FORMULAS (not recorded as entries: model results for s-states, gamma >> 1, no curated data to check). Eq. (1), static limit: Q_0 = w/w_sr = (2/F)^(2n*), F = script-E/E_ch, E_ch = kappa^3 (au), kappa = sqrt(2 I); Eq. (19): w ~ Q_C exp{-2 K0 (ln 2 gamma - 1/2)}; Eq. (20): Q_C = (8 K0 gamma^2)^(2n*) = (2/F)^(2n*) (2 gamma)^(2n*), gamma >> 1; Eq. (21): W_sr ~ K0^(-1/2) exp{-2 K0 (ln 2 gamma - 1/2) - 2 delta ln 2 gamma}, delta = N_min - n_th, n_th = K0 + K0/(2 gamma^2) (p. 3). The asymptotic coefficient C_kappa is set to 1 (p. 2). Consequence (Eq. (23), p. 4): W ~ J^(N_min - 2n*), a lower slope of the yield against intensity.

Recorded bibliographic identity status: VALIDATED. This concerns identification of the source; it does not establish the scientific correctness of its contents.

Datasets

No datasets are recorded.

Formulas

No formulas are recorded.

Corrections

No dataset errata are recorded in this source record.

Formula corrections, where recorded, appear with their formulas above. Curation notes may also discuss corrections or unresolved interpretation. Consult the review register for the checks and decisions.